Immigration

09/06/2017

Against the advice of top Republicans and business leaders, and dismissing previous words he had uttered, America’s brave president took out his wrath on young adults who are functioning and contributing members of the nation’s society. With a six month delay to allow Congress to possibly come up with a program to allow them to stay, Trump expelled these children from America and forced them to return to homelands most of them do not remember. In fact, many of them only know English and do not speak the language of the country where they may be headed.

Not only was this a brutally mean assault on innocent young people who have integrated into America’s society, it is also an attack on our economy which will lower our long term GDP significantly. These are not criminals or the “bad hombres” that Trump talked about in the past. They are workers and students who are doing their best to “Make America Great.” They are not on welfare or takers, and not drug addicts or alcoholics, which could describe many members of Trump’s white base in the nation’s heartland. Instead of considering what the Dreamers are contributing to society, Trump was willing to banish them from America because of promises he had made to his base. And this was another Obama programs that he could destroy and cross off his list.

The DACA initiative instituted by Obama shielded about 800,000 young people who came to America as children from deportation to their native country. The immigration was done illegally by their parents, but Trump is punishing innocents for the sins of their parents to assuage his base. Trump said after his election that he was going to expel immigrants who were criminals and addicts and that those who were good and clean would be safe. But he went back on his word to one group to placate another.

What he is literally doing is taking Americans who are productive workers or students and sending them to an alien land where they have no friends and no roots. Some of them served or serve in the American military, protecting people like Trump who was able to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War. He had promised the Dreamers that he would treat them with great heart and last week had stated that “We love the Dreamers.” So this is what Trump does to people he loves? The Dreamers now are fearful of losing their livelihoods and their homes, and everything they have accumulated over the years. Some of them have had children here who are very young American citizens who they will have to take with them or leave them behind.

Many of the Dreamers are workers who are paying taxes and important cogs in industries across the United States. That is why leading businessmen implored Trump not to end the DACA program. More than 400 of them sent a message to Trump and members of Congress asking them to save the Dreamers, saying that they were critical for the economy. Much of their economic output and consumption will be lost if they are deported. Some of them work in the tech industry but also in different jobs across the nation. With unemployment so low, businesses will have difficulty replacing them. 65 percent of Dreamers have bought their own cars and 16 percent their own homes. One economist has predicted that five years after DACA is repealed, the nation’s GDP will be less $105 billion annually that would have been made with the Dreamers here.

Immigrants are not taking jobs away from Americans. They perform jobs (meat packing industry) that Americans don’t want or haven’t been trained for. Trump doesn’t seem to understand the effects this will have on the American economy or just doesn’t care. He doesn’t understand the pain and stress he is causing for innocent young Americans who have done nothing wrong. Trump’s smallminded, cruel move was bad for the Dreamers and bad for America. Hopefully, Congress will come up with legislation that will save the Dreamers, though past efforts have not been successful. With Jeff Sessions applauding what Trump has done along with Republican members of the Freedom Caucus, legislative protection of the Dreamers is far from a done deal. This is in spite of the fact that about 80 percent of Americans favor having the Dreamers remain here.

08/30/2017

The Art of the Deal was the book that brought public recognition to Donald Trump and started him on the path to the presidency. It brought him a certain credibility as a businessman and established him as a figure capable of making wonderful deals: a man who knew what he was doing when negotiating with other people. His television persona in The Celebrity Apprentice and his constant appearance in the society pages of the newspapers reinforced the idea that he was a man of great street smarts and knowledge. However, the persona he presented was all a façade, with not a curious bone in his body and no desire to read or learn anything new. He was a narcissistic con artist who fooled many people into believing he was smarter than he was, richer than he was, and with the ability to run a country as well as a business.

Yet if he were the successful businessman he claimed to be, why was he so concerned about releasing his tax returns to public scrutiny, as every other presidential candidate had done for the last forty years. Had he done something illegal? Was he involved with shady characters or the Russians? Was he in debt or less rich than he had led Americans to believe? There were stories floating around of how he had stiffed contractors working on his projects and had misled investors in some of his deals, causing them to lose large sums. It would have been so easy for him to dispel the rumors and show the world that he had not done anything illegal and that he was indeed rich and successful. But his refusal to release his taxes had to mean that he was hiding something, or perhaps many things. For this arrogant businessman not to prove to everyone that he was an amazingly successful person and to stop people from questioning his bona fides indicated that he was afraid to do it for one reason or another.

And why is he worried about Mueller investigating his financial records in addition to his and his campaign team’s involvement with the Russians. What can be revealed that troubles him, either because he did something illegal or it threatens to impact his stature? And for a man as pompous and smug as Trump, the latter would probably be as devastating as the former. He has a self-image that he doesn’t want tainted.

So while we wait for the Mueller and Congressional investigations to run their course, Trump sits in the White House, making many Americans anxious as he acts and reacts spontaneously to slights and perceived slights from individuals and countries. In reality, instead of The Art of the Deal, he should have titled his book The Art of the Ordeal, which he is putting all Americans through as they wait to see what will happen next. A compendium of his actions does not give one much hope that at some point a new Donald Trump will emerge.

A minor summary of the ordeal Americans have been subjected to by Trump would include his ‘pussy grabbing’ of women, his insistence on a wall at America’s southern border that Mexico will pay for, his unadulterated praise for Putin, his negative comments about John McCain- a true hero, his belittling of a Muslim Gold Star family when Trump never served in the military, his hiring and then firing of General Flynn, his firing of James Comey who would not do his bidding at the FBI, his support for fossil fuels when more jobs are in renewables, his dropping out of the Paris Accord which was unnecessary from an economic standpoint, his denigration of NATO, his handling of Charlottesville and equating white supremacists with anti-racist marchers, his pardoning of Joe Arpaio who violated human rights, his threat to let the US default on its debt if there is no funding for his wall, and on and on.

So where do we go from here? Will the ordeal ever come to an end? Trump could resign, or Mueller could come after him, or he could be impeached, or fill out his four year term. Re-election is too horrid to consider. Now that citizens have seen him in action in office, could they possibly keep him for another four years? Remember that few Americans imagined him as president in the first place and he still won. He would love to win another term just to stick it to the elites, academics, and liberals who have labelled him an incompetent bully and buffoon.

06/21/2017

American politics needs a major shake-up if the nation is to prosper in the 21st century. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties are ossified and incapable of meeting the challenges that occur daily as well as dealing with long term problems. Some of this is rooted in their long histories of corruption and willingness to accede to the wishes of individuals and corporations that provide them with funding. The leading lights of the parties are not those with the most exciting ideas and proposals for the future, but those who are the most adept fundraisers and those who have been around Washington the longest. Since Citizens United and the McCutcheon decisions by the Supreme Court, money has become even more critical for the parties.

Though significant legislative accomplishments by Congress prior to the Trump election was an infrequent happening, Trump’s behavior since his ascension to the White House has put all legislative initiatives on hold. The question of his campaign colluding with the Russians and of Trump’s actions obstructing justice remains open, with the Sword of Damocles hanging over the president, held by Special Investigator Mueller. Whether Trump will move to fire Mueller, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials has all of Washington holding its breath, with nothing getting done.

But when we look at the government’s accomplishments since the turn of the century, we see little except the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank bill, both of which the Republicans and Trump are trying to dismantle. Meanwhile, our infrastructure is falling apart, resembling that of a third world nation rather than that of a developed country. Trump has promised a trillion dollar overhaul of the infrastructure, a drop in the bucket of what is needed, but even that is not getting done. Research and development funding by the federal government has been cut drastically, even though that is seed money for technology and innovation that will keep the economy going in the future. Both the Republicans and Democrats seem incapable of running the country the way it needs to be run.

Now we look at France, a democracy that was even more ossified than our own, with a stagnant economy, work rules that fostered unemployment, major problems with Muslim immigrants who had not integrated into the greater society, frequent acts of terrorism, and corrupt political parties that were not solving any of the country’s problems. Then along comes Emmanuel Macron to upset the whole political applecart that had been ingrained in France for decades. Emmanuel Macron and Republique En Marche.

This 39 year old man who had never held any elected position previously (was Economy Minister for a while) came out of nowhere to destroy the National Front led by Marianne Le Pen, and the mainstream Socialist and rightest parties that had been around forever. Not only was he elected president with two thirds of the votes, but his newly formed centrist party Republique En Marche filled with political novices, badly beat the established parties for seats in parliament and holds an unshakable majority.

We are yet to see what Macron and his new party will do following their victories to change the political and economic systems that have chained France to its past and made it uncompetitive. But there is a new vigor and energy in the country with a change from widespread pessimism to optimism. The old politicians and politics have been swept away and youth with new ideas and a new way of doing things is in power. And there are no obligations to other power centers, to lobbyists or special interests. Macron and his coterie will do what they believe is good for France. This doesn’t mean that he will be completely successful, or that there won’t be strong opposition from those who are damaged financially or in other ways by Macron’s actions. But at least there will be movement with a strong mandate from the French populace.

America is also in need of a Macron-like figure: a charismatic centrist who can draw from both the right and the left to start the nation on a new track. Creating a new party and limiting the appeal of the Republicans and Democrats to their long term supporters is probably not doable in the United States, though Ross Perot could have managed it a quarter century ago if he had not blundered. But things have gotten worse in Washington with extreme partisanship at every level of government and Republicans and Democrats unable to work together on any issue of substance.

A charismatic figure who is completely clean, with no ties to lobbyists or special interests is needed to lead America out of the wilderness and the deep doo-doo it is currently in. Whether this means a centrist third party or pushing moderates to run in both establishment parties is unclear. So far, no one of note has stepped forward to pick up the gauntlet. Is there such a person in American politics?

05/03/2017

While America is obsessed with the machinations and tweets by President Trump, Europe is sailing in uncharted waters. After the devastation of two world wars during the first half of the 20th century, with tens of millions of soldiers and civilians dying, there was a dream by some prescient Europeans of a united continent, tied together economically to eliminate the threat of future wars. There was the hope that citizens of individual nations would slowly shed their garments of nationalism and wear the robes of European citizens, retaining only weak links to their homelands.

The growth of the European concept started with the ECSC- the European Coal and Steel Community of six nations, including France and Germany, founded in 1951 under the leadership of Jean Monet, its first president. In 1967, it merged with Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community, and the European Economic Community. Together, they had a single executive body, an institutional structure, and shared a Court of Justice and Parliamentary Assembly. The Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992 sought to integrate Europe into a single unified body, the European Union. The signees included twelves countries including the economic engines of France, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain. Several other steps and treaties towards unification preceded Maastrict, among them the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the Single European Act in 1986. The Euro, a common currency for the EU was introduced in 1999, further binding the nations of Europe together, though England continued to use the pound.

Since the founding of the EU, it has grown to twenty-nine nations with the same currency and open borders, for goods, capital, and people (Shentgen Agreement). However, the common currency has made life difficult for the countries of southern Europe, whose productivity lags that of the north. Their debt levels have grown enormously, exceeding their ability to pay back their loans without assistance, given their GDPs. Unemployment has also surged since the recession of 2007-2008 and remains at unacceptably high levels, especially among the young. And budget deficits need to be brought under permanent control. Greece is the prime example of these dilemmas, though other nations have similar, though less onerous problems. The imposed solution of austerity, in order to receive loans from the IMF and EU, has caused great hardships for the population of these nations, with little improvement in their debt levels. The obvious answer prior to the advent of the Euro would have been depreciation of national currencies to make their products more competitive relative to other nations and to boost employment. But with the Euro, this was not possible.

The Shentgen Agreement has also caused problems for the countries of the EU. With refugees pouring in to escape wars in the Middle East and Africa, and economic migrants seeking work in the more prosperous EU, difficulties have arisen. A number of nations have refused to accept these new arrivals because of cultural and religious differences, economic concerns, and the threat of terrorism. This has caused a schism in the EU and has led to the rise of nationalism and populism, with political parties wary of the EU and opposed to globalism. Eastern European states in particular have come under the sway of populism and nationalism, with Hungary and Poland now ruled by nationalist parties. So-called illiberal democracies, with one man or one party control, have reared their ugly heads, with ethnocentrism the dominant philosophy. But every state has seen variants of nationalism and populism spread, mainly because of immigration, even in a liberal nation like Denmark.

Another factor that sticks in the craw of most EU countries are the rules and regulations that emanate from the bureaucracy and parliament in Brussels. Many of these conflict with standard practices in different states, forcing them to make unwanted changes. Nations feel this is an unnecessary infringement on their sovereignty over with they have no control.

Open borders, immigration, and Brussel rules and regulations are considered responsible for Brexit last year, with Great Britain the first nation to exit the EU. Britain left in spite of warnings of negative economic consequences and the likelihood that Scotland would split with Great Britain. Blatant nationalism won out over rational choice, with a majority of English citizens wanting control of the borders and immigration. Though a shock to the EU, with British separation yet to be negotiated, continental Europe is still joined together in the EU, at least for the moment.

But will the dream survive? Russian interference in European elections with campaigns of disinformation supporting illiberal democracies are doing damage and must be neutralized. The next major test is the French runoff election between the centrist Emmanuel Macron and the far-right nationalist Marine LePen. Though Macron, who wants to keep France in the EU is favored, a victory by LePen is possible given the unpredictable emotional pull of nationalism and populism. A LePen victory would mean Frexit, with France pulling out of the EU and shattering the dream of a united Europe. If France stays, differences in the economies and debt loads of southern and eastern Europe and the prosperous north, still has to be worked out. But without France, there is no hope. An election in the fall also has to reaffirm Germany’s commitment to the EU. The tide of nationalism and populism with its support of illiberal democracies must be halted as well, if the advances in liberty and human rights realized in the 20th century are to be continued. The dream is fragile

02/28/2017

A Pew Poll taken right after the 2016 election verified the gap that existed between Trump and Clinton supporters on their perception of a number of different issues facing America, a partial explanation for how they voted. However, some of their understandings of life in America were in direct contradiction to statistics from the government, academic institutions, or quality surveys. This misinformation that they had and relied on obviously skewed their perceptions of what was and what wasn’t important for the government to do.

For instance, 38 percent of Americans believed that the economy had gotten better since 2008, 18 percent felt it was about the same, and 43 percent believed it had gotten worse. But in reality, the unemployment rate had dropped dramatically since 2008 and the stock market had soared, both indications that the economy was doing very well. Many American must have forgotten that the nation was in a severe recession in 2008 when Obama started his term as president and that over eight years there was a vast improvement in the economy. Similarly, 35 percent said the job situation had gotten better, 21 percent said it was about the same and 44 percent said it had gotten worse. These numbers were also contrary to the government’s unemployment statistics.

On security from terrorism, 23 percent said it had gotten better, 31 percent said it was about the same, and 45 percent said it had gotten worse. Though there had been a number of terroristic incidents in Europe recently, the number or terroristic attacks by “Radical Islamists” in America had been minimal. In fact, since 9/11, less than 100 Americans had been killed by Muslims in terror events. And the vast majority of these were by home grown jihadists and not immigrants, with none coming from the Islamic countries from which refugees and immigrants are being banned. Domestic terrorists/white supremacists like Dylan Roof in South Carolina had also been guilty of multiple killings. The number of deaths resulting from murders from the use of guns in crimes, domestic incidents, and so forth is a significant multiple of all the terrorist attacks, but nothing is being done to diminish these.

In terms of crime in general, 15 percent said it was improved since 2008, 27 percent said it was the same, and 45 percent said it had gotten worse. On the other hand, government statistics show that crime is much improved during this period, though it has flattened out somewhat over the last few years. As far as race relations, 9 percent said it had gotten better, 23 percent that it was the same, and 67 percent reported that it had gotten worse. Independent of statistics, most Americans would tend to agree with these numbers.

Interestingly in the Pew Poll, Trump voters preferred new quick fixes to the various problems noted, 53 percent to 46 percent, even if they entailed major risks and might make things worse, while Clinton supporters wanted the opposite approach. 16 percent desired rapid solutions and 84 percent gradual alleviation of the problems. Does this have anything to do with the fact that Clinton supporters were more highly educated than those who backed Trump? (While that may be considered an elitist comment, it may also be true.) In total, all voters preferred a gradual approach to solving problems, 65 percent to 34 percent.

The unfortunate takeaway message for Americans from this Pew Poll is that voters lack correct information regarding terrorism, the economy, and crime in the United States since the turn of the century. This political ignorance must play some role in which party and which candidates voters choose when casting their ballots. However, polls have also revealed that a majority of Americans most years do not even know which parties control the House and the Senate. Thus, voters are really not informed when they go to the polls.

02/08/2017

The BS just keeps flowing, on and on, every single day. Does the president and his team understand how this drains America of credibility on the world stage and makes it difficult for Americans to know what is real and what is not. What is important and what is not. Perhaps that’s the rationale behind the false news and alternative reality that Americans are constantly hit with, the travel ban, and the love fest with Putin, killer or not.

The dust-up over KellyAnne Conway’s claim of an ISIS massacre in Bowling Green, Ohio which never happened, seems to be dying down. Two Iraqis were picked up on terrorism charges there, but there were no killings and no newsworthy events. Conway admitted afterwards that she had made a mistake. (Happens to us all.)

Another claim from Trumpland was that the media were not covering all the terrorist attacks that were occurring in Europe as well as the US. Trump made it seem as if the media wanted to downplay the threat from Islamic terrorists, while the Trumpers were the protectors of the nation. When Trump’s team gave the list of so-called terrorist attacks to the media, it turned out that most of them were well known and had been well covered by the media. Would Trump say “my bad.” No way.

And the president claiming that the murder rate was the highest it has been in forty-seven years was an absolute lie. The FBI statistics for 2015, the last year available, show that the homicide rate was much lower than it had been in the 80s and the 90s, as well as the first decade of the 21st century. Trump seems to be pulling these numbers out of the air with no statistics to support him. Is he claiming now that the FBI is issuing false news, or is he blaming this on the media?

Then there is our “so called” president saying that the “so called” judge who placed a hold on the Muslim ban on entry to the US was putting the country in danger. What proof was there of that? Since 9/11, there has not been a single death to an American from an immigrant or refugee in a terrorist episode. And 9/11 was perpetrated by Saudi citizens. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia on the terrorist list when their Wahabi culture and support of madrassas is what drives terrorism against the West, Shiites, Sufis, and so forth.

And terrorist incidents in France and Germany were from Tunisians, another country not on the list (though it has become “democratic.”) Pakistan is another nation with an extensive history of terrorism against Christians, Shiites, and other religious groups. They should certainly be on the Trump list if it was really to protect against terrorism and was not just a sop to his base. In fact, the bombing attempt in Times Square in 2010 was perpetrated by a man of Pakistani origin. (Maybe Trump is unaware of the risks that Pakistanis pose. He’d rather fight with the Australian PM, one of our allies.)

And what’s going on with Trump and Putin. When O’Reilly on Fox mentioned that Putin was a killer, Trump seemed to dismiss it, saying that America wasn’t so clean itself. Was he equating American actions with those of Putin? What material does Putin have on the Trumper that keeps the big guy from unleashing some of his acid rhetoric against the Russian? The bromance between them just doesn’t seem to make sense.

So we have three disparate tracks from the Trumpers since the inauguration that raise questions. First is the constant flow of alternative facts, which we would call lies, with his blasting the media for its failure to do something which it clearly did. Second, we have the Trumper’s ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Islamic nations where ISIS is active. But the countries whose nationals have been responsible for terrorism in Europe and at home have not been put on the list. And Saudi Arabia, whose nationals hit us with 9/11 have also not been subject to the ban. And thirdly, the strange poetic fantasy that we see evolving between the Trumper and the Put-man.

Am I missing something here, or does the pattern of actions emanating from the Trumper defy one’s imagination and fail the test of reason? Is there some secret strategy that is beyond us?

01/31/2017

While the press and most Americans were focused on the Trump ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, a move of potentially greater significance to the nation appears to have slipped under the radar for the most part. The press has focused on Trump’s rushed order that took many government employees by surprise, and its effect on families, and American businesses. Putting the ban in place may have been suggested by Steven Bannon, a major Trump advisor. The media prominently covered the demonstrations against the ban, the way judges had put a halt to some of the orders, and the way various lawyers had come to the aid of the detainees. There is no question that this move by Trump contradicted American values, such as a welcoming embrace for refugees and those buffeted by war and persecution, and that his order may be unconstitutional in some ways.

However, while the immigration bru-ha-ha was taking place, Trump changed the make-up of the National Security Council, potentially putting the nation at greater risk and providing his campaign manager and chief advisor Steven Bannon with greater power. Bannon, who had been a right-wing agitator and the CEO of Breitbart News before hooking up with the Trump campaign, did have some minimal military experience, having served in the Navy when he was much younger. But he was not a military or intelligence expert.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence were removed from the Council, and told to participate only when the Council considers issues in their area of responsibility. This is really bizarre when you think about it, as every issue before the National Security Council should involve input from the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Why should President Trump have removed them from the Council and put Steven Bannon with no expertise involving national security in their place.

It sounds as if the idea may have come directly from Bannon, who convinced Trump that he could play a useful role on the Council. The order elevates Bannon over the DNI, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and above top military and intelligence advisors, and puts him on a level with the Secretaries of Defense and State. Bannon is basically a political appointee who now may be considered President Trump’s top dog on military and intelligence issues, with a direct line to the president’s ear.

The president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, declared that the move at the NSC was done to make an antiquated and bloated bureaucracy more efficient, a talking point that makes no sense. Past high-level officials from both parties were surprised and disturbed by the action, which was seen as injecting politics into national security issues, which is a strong no-no. Political repercussions should never be a consideration when dealing with national security.

And why should someone like Bannon, with no significant military or intelligence expertise be on the National Security Council. It appears as if Trump has raised him to be his second in command, above his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his White Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus who was appointed at the same time as Bannon. Bannon also appears to have supplanted General Michael Flynn as Trump’s main source of national security information, with Flynn having made some missteps in his interactions with Trump.

But the Bannon role is particularly concerning because of his access to Trump and the way the president follows his advice. As his role has expanded, he has accumulated more power. One wonders if Bannon has become the Trumpian equivalent of Rasputin who was the influential advisor to Czar Nicholas, the last Russian czar who was deposed and killed by the Communists at the time of the Revolution. Given his history of involvement with white supremacists and the alt-right, Bannon presents a danger to American democracy with his position in the Trump White House hierarchy. The question is whether the Republican establishment can get Bannon out before he does too much damage? Otherwise, America is even in more trouble.

01/18/2017

Though some analysts have called our time the Second Gilded Age, it is more appropriate to label it as the Age of Uncertainty. With Donald Trump in the White House, the direction the nation will take, both in terms of domestic issues and foreign affairs, is veiled in uncertainty. And with America’s path and policies unclear, the world as a whole must accommodate to a perplexing future. In fact, it is likely that even President-elect Trump is uncertain of where he will be taking America, as he has demonstrated frequent changes of mind on a host of issues. This includes political leanings and party affiliations, as in the past he was a large donor to the Democrats and supported abortion, gay rights, and Planned Parenthood. While it is unlikely he will return to these positions, he may shift his stances on some of the views that got him elected.

The nation has seen some of this already. Running as a populist and soliciting the votes of working men and women, Trump has populated the domestic posts in his cabinet with millionaires and billionaires whose ideas will do nothing to improve the lives of the working and middle classes. In all likelihood, they will make things more difficult for the Americans who formed Trump’s base, starting with the elimination of Obamacare and Tom Price’s plans for health care reform, which will undoubtedly make health care more expensive and take it away from some recipients.

There is also the opposition to a minimum wage and workplace regulations by the new Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder. Pudzer had been the CEO of two fast food companies who was against the regulations put in place for workers that increased their safety and expanded the rules for overtime pay. He has said that he is looking forward to replacing workers with automation, as machines never get sick, do not injure themselves on the job or sue the companies, do not ask for raises, and are always polite to customers.

Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary has been involved in pushing charter schools in Michigan. However, her ideas have not resulted in improved student test scores or educational success. She has also fought continuously with the Teacher’s Unions.

Trump himself has changed his mind on a number of issues. On the campaign trail, he was going to deport all undocumented immigrants. This has now morphed into those who have committed criminal offenses. He was also going to build a wall at America’s southern border which Mexico will pay for. Now it has become a fence that will be supplemented by electronic devices and aerial surveillance. From not allowing any Muslims into the country, he now has restricted it to Muslim nations harboring terrorists. It is uncertain how that will be determined.

There is also the bru-ha-ha over Trump’s bromance with Putin, with Russia previously America’s main adversary. No one is sure how this relationship will evolve. And America’s alliance as part of NATO that has been in place since WW II has been bad-mouthed by Trump, unsettling the other members. What does he intend to do with NATO?

And how will he handle the Middle East? His naming an Israeli hawk as ambassador may make it hard for any peace deal to be negotiated as more and more of the West Bank is absorbed into Israel and the embassy is moved to Jerusalem.

How about the trade pacts and trade deals that Trump has been so unhappy about? NAFTA may be renegotiated and the TPP seems dead for now (much to China’s delight). Will he slap tariffs on imported goods from manufacturers that left the country or those that get subsidies from their governments? The stock markets soared right after Trump was elected, believing that as a businessman, he would cut regulations and not do anything that would damage foreign trade. But can one be certain of the latter? The markets seem to have stabilized recently, even declining slightly.

Thus, we are in a period of uncertainty, where domestic, foreign, and economic policy is not yet clear to anyone, even President-elect Trump. America’s new leader is a man who frequently shifts directions and in the future, it is likely that he will take the world along for the roller-coaster ride.

01/12/2017

When Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp, what exactly did he mean? Did he himself know? The inference was that he wanted to rid Washington of all its insiders that were ruining the country, particularly the ensconced politicians and the lobbyists. But he also railed against Wall Street and the moneyed elite. These were in cahoots with Washington to produce legislation that would benefit them financially, even if it damaged working men and women in various ways.

As a supposed populist, it was assumed by his supporters that their needs would be foremost in what Trump did as president. However, in naming his proposed cabinet members and advisors, Trump has tapped no one from the working class, preferring to have multi-millionaires and billionaires help him set policy. Doesn’t do much for his populist bona fides.

And after his diatribes against the Wall Street banks during his campaign, he has brought current or former Goldman Sachs executives into his cabinet and as major advisors. Isn’t this rather a strange sequence of events? Does he really expect these wealthy individuals to come up with ideas that will help the middle and lower working classes? Aren’t they the swamp dwellers he was describing?

Trump also campaigned against free trade and the trade deals that America was involved with, telling his supporters that these deals had stolen American jobs and lowered American wages. He was going to renegotiate these trade deals or renege on them if he couldn’t make them better for America. But Goldman Sachs has been a major beneficiary of free trade and the various deals, advising domestic and foreign corporations on these deals and lending money when necessary. Now, Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, his Director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, and one of his senior advisors, Steven Bannon, have all cut their teeth at Goldman Sachs. (Cohn was the president and COO of Goldman.) Are they going to be the ones to revise the trade deals to help the little guys in America? Don’t bet on it.

Draining the swamp also implied making America fairer. Yet, Trump wanted special consideration by the Senate for his cabinet appointees. He asked that they be approved quickly, even before they had finished filling out their financial forms to eliminate any conflicts of interest or ethical problems. But on the other hand, Trump himself never released his tax forms while he was running for office, claiming they were being audited. (The IRS said that would not stop them from being made public.) No other presidential candidate in modern history has failed to release his taxes to public scrutiny. And as president-elect, Trump has still not released his taxes. What is in these forms that he does not want Americans to see?

The Republican Party has stood for free trade for decades. (Are they considered swamp dwellers?) How will the party establishment react when Trump extricates the United States from all the trade deals that have been in place? And what about TPP, the Trans Pacific Agreement that was not ratified by Congress? This was negotiated with the idea of constraining China and if America backs out, it virtually gives free rein to China in the Pacific regarding trade deals with other nations. Is that part of draining the swamp? The benefits of trade have to be weighed against the adverse effects when doing deals. Some groups may be hurt, but it may be advantageous to the nation as a whole.

And does draining the swamp include deporting all undocumented Mexicans with the negative effects that will have on the American economy? Polls have shown that more Mexicans have been leaving the country in the last few years than coming in. So is spending precious money on the wall at America’s southern border really necessary, when so many other things need to be done?

Draining the swamp is really a metaphor for getting rid of all the bad guys. So that should be Trump’s goal. Just not sure he’s the person to do it, particularly after his choices for cabinet posts and advisors. But the country has at least four years to see how he does and hope for the best. However, it’s hard to be an optimist these days.

12/21/2016

This communication is not fake. But how would you know. My claiming it’s real means nothing. In fact, even the president claiming that what he says, or tweets, is real, means nothing. However, a large percentage of people in the United States believe the president’s declarations. Why not? In normal times, that would be reasonable. But these are not normal times, and this is not a normal president who holds press conferences to reach out to citizens. Instead, he tweets his thoughts to his followers and avoids any insightful questioning. We are in a post-fact world. Any comments or news that gets play on social media and is seen by millions can be factual or not.

I remember when I would get my news from the New York Times, CBS or NBC News, and automatically believe what I was reading or heard. Why should it be questioned? But now, there are so many sources dispensing “news” and trying to influence the way people think, that what one accepts as true depends to a large degree on one’s political perspective. Partisanship colors the truth and what we tend to believe.

And many people on the right routinely demonize the mainstream media, accusing them of slanting the news, when in reality they are America’s last, best hope for transmitting the truth. The nation needs the mainstream media to separate fact from fiction, news from opinion, with freedom of the press one of the pillars of democracy. Getting the real news out to citizens is a vital role that the media has to play in any democracy, and America’s democracy is now in dire straits.

We have a president who lies or exaggerates constantly, saying things like ‘he won the popular vote and that millions of illegals voted,’ which he has to know are not true. His apparently spontaneous comments are meant to boost his ego and make him look good, which means that he’s very insecure. He has also denied Russian hacking in the election which our intelligence agencies have verified as having happened. America is in real trouble if he’s not going to accept what our intelligence agencies tell him and instead goes with his gut and narcissistic instincts.

Yet, a majority of his followers believe what Trump says, accepting that he won the popular vote and that the Russians government is not responsible for the hacking that has occurred. Some of that may be because of the news sites where his followers get their information and their unwillingness to trust the mainstream media. There are also a host of Internet trolls who are pumping out fake news in support of Trump and discrediting those who disagree with him. This is a significant danger to democratic values.

In addition to delivering the real news to those who are willing to accept it, the mainstream media, particularly the newspapers, play an important investigative role in democracies, ferreting out corruption in government and business and exposing lies by public figures. If the president and his associates disparage the mainstream media and are unwilling to cooperate with them, it will be more difficult for the media to do their jobs properly. If he says that they are promoting false information and lying about him, fewer people may buy the newspapers and tune in to the news programs on television. And businesses may stop advertising in these venues to get on the good side of the president and his minions.

We are at a crucial time in our democracy, where fake news is being created and circulated on social media by trolls, foreign and domestic hackers, and fake news websites, with millions of Americans relying on these unvetted stories and conspiracy theories. Some of the tales are so bizarre that one has to wonder how any person with half a brain could believe them, such as ‘Hillary Clinton running a pedophilic sex ring out of a pizza shop in Washington.’ But the stories have legs, being repeated over and over again until some people believe that they must be true, particularly if these people had negative feelings about Clinton in the first place. Then a believer with a gun comes to act because of these lies. And we can expect further actions, some of them violent, by politically illiterate citizens believing various fake news stories in the future.

What is the antidote? Obviously, knowledge. But how do you get people to read or look at mainstream media to obtain their information and start to question the lies and conspiracy theories from social media and fake news sites that occupy a large portion of their half-brains? They don’t want to question their beliefs. Makes them too uncomfortable and out of sync with their peers.